Donald Trump Indicted on 7 Counts

[Stavros]

I don't think I will ever understand the support a liar and a con-man like Trump has among seasoned politicians and journalists. I can only assume they are as disenchanted by the USA as Trump is, and no longer have any faith in the system that was created in the aftermath of 1776. The problem is that while Trump appears to favour some form of Autocracy or Dictatorship, it is not clear what his Republican supporters want, though the Libertarians funded by the Koch dynasty and similar rich men, want an end to Government in its broadest sense of the word, a radical position which seems be derived from the earliest settlers who believed in self-government.

That said, is it even conceivable that faced with such serious consequences, Trump could do a deal, plead guilty to some of the charges and take a chance on the rest? Or even just throw in the towel on the basis that he will not be sent to prison?

The text of the indictment is here-

trump-indictment.pdf (d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net)

[Stavros]

The indictment makes for fascinating reading, though a lot of its content was aired in the hearings in the House that were televised last year. There is a long section on the Vice President that to my mind undermines most of Trump's case, or Defendant 1, Def1 here.

Defenders have argued this case is a test of the First Amendment, that Free Speech is the foundation of Trump's defence, that he had the legal right to tell lies.

I disagree with this, on the basis of what is in the Indictment. It details the number of times Def1 was told there was no fraud, either in general terms, or in the specific States that became the subject of Def1's claims. In some cases, at an evening meeting Def1 would be told categorically that X was not true, but then repeat it the following morning, in a Tweet, or verbally or in some other way. Does the First Amendment enable a President to knowingly tell lies? On one occasion he failed to get the Vice President to use his role in Congress to stop the transition, then stated the following morning the Vice President was considering it -does Free Speech enable Def1 to lie about someone else's intentions?

The key, it seems to me, is not that Free Speech is a right, but that the intention of the lies was to deprive the citizens of the USA their Constitutional right to have their votes counted fairly, and for the outcome to represent their wishes.

But what the Indictment also documents, is that when Def1 did not get the response he wanted, either from State officials or the Vice President, he used the power of the Presidency to threaten them -with legal action in the case of Georgia, more sinister in the case of the Vice President. This is what the Indictment says about the latter-

"97.
Also on January 5, the Defendant met alone with the Vice President. When the Vice President refused to agree to the Defendant's request that he obstruct the certification, the Defendant grew frustrated and told the Vice President that the Defendant would have to publicly criticize him. Upon learning of this, the Vice-President's Chief of Staff was concerned for the Vice President's safety and alerted the head of the Vice President's Secret Service detail."

-This is chilling, because in others cases, such as in the case of the election worker in Georgia libelled more than 20 times in that notorious phone call, and in other cases, refusals to adopt Def1's lies led to death threats, forced removals from home, and, as was seen on the next day, January 6, mobs screaming 'Hang Mike Pence!'.

Surely, Free Speech cannot be used or legally justified, if the aim is to coerce others, or threaten, or merely insinuate that a violent act might follow? And violent acts did follow, and the Indictment claims that such acts were a direct consequence of Def1's 'Free Speech' rights.

In another case, officials in the Department of Justice were told they would be fired if they did not implement procedures that were known to be based on lies, that were known to be a violation of the Constitution and the Law. Is it Free Speech to threaten someone's livelihood?

I am no lawyer, but I am assuming there is a boundary line that separates the Free Speech of Def1 which claims 'We won every State by a lot', from the Free Speech that intimidates, threatens, and even threatens individuals with violence. That cannot be right.

[Stavros]

A useful interpretation, based on the President's Conduct, rather than his speech. The sections on the Fake Electors in the Indictment goes into a lot of detail but is nevertheless potentially one of the strongest cases against Def1.

Rep. Jamie Raskin Dismantles Trump's 'Comical' New Jan. 6 Claim (yahoo.com)

[KnightHawk 2.0]

I don't think I will ever understand the support a liar and a con-man like Trump has among seasoned politicians and journalists. I can only assume they are as disenchanted by the USA as Trump is, and no longer have any faith in the system that was created in the aftermath of 1776. The problem is that while Trump appears to favour some form of Autocracy or Dictatorship, it is not clear what his Republican supporters want, though the Libertarians funded by the Koch dynasty and similar rich men, want an end to Government in its broadest sense of the word, a radical position which seems be derived from the earliest settlers who believed in self-government.

That said, is it even conceivable that faced with such serious consequences, Trump could do a deal, plead guilty to some of the charges and take a chance on the rest? Or even just throw in the towel on the basis that he will not be sent to prison?

The text of the indictment is here-

trump-indictment.pdf (d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net)

It because his supporters have been brainwashed into believing anything The MAGA King Donald Trump,and his enablers in US Congress,Senate and on the Propaganda Channel tells them. And are convinced he's the victim and target of a witch hunt of the deep state who is out to get him. He's not going to do that,because thinks he's innocent and didn't do anything wrong,which everyone else knows he did and is going to end up paying the price with his freedom by being convicted and serving time in federal prison.

[Stavros]

He's not going to do that,because thinks he's innocent and didn't do anything wrong,which everyone else knows he did and is going to end up paying the price with his freedom by being convicted and serving time in federal prison.

But as the former President's security team are not going to go to prison with him, if convicted and so sentenced, he would have to serve his time in a military prison.

As in: Guantanamo...

[filghy2]

I am no lawyer, but I am assuming there is a boundary line that separates the Free Speech of Def1 which claims 'We won every State by a lot', from the Free Speech that intimidates, threatens, and even threatens individuals with violence. That cannot be right.

There is. Trump is not being charged with falsely claiming the election was fraudulent, or with using legal/constitutional means to challenge the outcome. He (and others) are charged with conspiring to overturn the outcome through extra-constitutional means.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-work-it-wont

[KnightHawk 2.0]

But as the former President's security team are not going to go to prison with him, if convicted and so sentenced, he would have to serve his time in a military prison.

As in: Guantanamo...

Completely agree,they're not going to prison with Donald Trump,that's where a traitor and domestic terrorist leader like him belongs at.

[filghy2]

Even the non-right media has done nothing to paint Biden's administration in a positive light. Any good news on the economy is couched in terms of a looming recession. His age is always mentioned. Polling showing that voters don't want a Biden/Trump rematch is always mentioned. The man literally pulled us back from the brink, got landmark infrastructure legislation and the CHIPS Act passed, and gets zero credit.

They don't seem to learned much from 2016, when every negative about Hillary Clinton was amplified, while Trump's outrageous statements were downplayed because he wasn't taken seriously.

Many people seem to be in denial about what a second Trump term might entail. If he wins again there won't be any Republican 'adults' keeping him line. The key lesson he learnt from last time is the need to install Trump sycophants in every public position. The Republican establishment will be totally cowed into submission.

[Fitzcarraldo]

The Republican establishment will be totally cowed into submission.

That has already happened.

[Stavros]

How does one deal with the argument from Trump's defenders, when Trump was told there was no fraud in the election by the Attorney General, the head of National Intelligence, the head of Cyber Security, every official White House lawyer, and his Vice-President -do their opinions not have any weight at all on Presidential decisions if instead. the President brings in outsiders, 'crackpot lawyers' whose judgments Trump does believe? If this is the case, what is the job of the Attorney General when dealing with the President, or all the others?
If the prosecution ask Trump why he did not believe any of the formal officials in the administration, how will he answer that question?

I come back to something I mentioned some time ago re John Eastman. I have seem him called one of the leading experts on Constitutional Law, but he was working in a law school ranked 147 or something like that. To me, that suggests a minor figure with no claim to be an expert on anything. So how did he find himself re-located from California to the Oval Office of the White House? He clerked for Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court Justice sponsored by Harlan Crow. But I guess hundreds of clerks get their chance to work with a Supreme Court Justice, just as members of the House and Senate have interns. But the connection is there, if not Clarence himself, then perhaps his wife?

Last night on BBC-2's Newsnight, a lawyer defending Trump was never asked if there is any merit in the Indictment's claim that Trump conspired with others to stop the process of certification on January 6, Mark Urban asking other questions -but surely this is one of the key problems Trump has? It is one thing to deny the reality of the election result, but something different to then seek the means to prevent the election process from taking place, described in the US Constitution as Sedition, because while Congress does have the right to question outcomes, it cannot do so on a whim, on an argument that has zero evidence to support its claim.

Like the lies told in the Brexit campaign, the defenders must hope that if they lie, lie and lie again, people will either believe the lies, or just switch off, a win-win for the terrorists.